This is why you should never trust your fuel gages

[Ron Garret]

http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9

This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.

[Sam Spade]

Ron Garret wrote:
> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>
> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.


You might want to change that to "gauge."

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Sam Spade > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
> >
> > This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
> > Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>
>
> You might want to change that to "gauge."

Done. (I was never very good at speling.)

rg

[Mike]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>
> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.

This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge uses the
same technology as a toilet tank float.

A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 7, 10:20 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> >http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>
> > This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
> > Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>
> You might want to change that to "gauge."

Or not. Gage is a perfectly fine variant.

[Dale Scroggins[_2_]]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
...
> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>
>> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
>> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>
> This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge uses
> the same technology as a toilet tank float.
>
> A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.

Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank float
valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades. However, many
have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually the resistance winding
will develop spots where the wiper doesn't make good contact, and the gauge
(U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will fluctuate wildly for a few minutes, until fuel
is burned off and the wiper moves to a new location, then the gauge works
normally again. Simple and relatively simple to fix.

Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance systems?
Do you trust totalizers totally?

[Mike]

"Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>>
>>> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
>>> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>>
>> This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge uses
>> the same technology as a toilet tank float.
>>
>> A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.
>
> Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank float
> valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades. However, many
> have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually the resistance
> winding will develop spots where the wiper doesn't make good contact, and
> the gauge (U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will fluctuate wildly for a few minutes,
> until fuel is burned off and the wiper moves to a new location, then the
> gauge works normally again. Simple and relatively simple to fix.

If what you say is true, why do quite a few relatively new planes exhibit
the same symptoms?

>
> Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance systems?
> Do you trust totalizers totally?

I've flown lots of planes with totalizers and never seen a failure. I've
also seen lots of failures and gross errors in float type systems (new and
old), so in my experience, yes they are more reliable.

As far as your last question it appears to be argumentative. I could just
as easily ask you if you trust the standard Cessna fuel gauge totally, but
neither really deserves an answer.

[Dale Scroggins[_2_]]

"Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
...
> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>>>
>>>> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in
>>>> South
>>>> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>>>
>>> This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge uses
>>> the same technology as a toilet tank float.
>>>
>>> A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.
>>
>> Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank float
>> valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades. However,
>> many have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually the resistance
>> winding will develop spots where the wiper doesn't make good contact, and
>> the gauge (U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will fluctuate wildly for a few minutes,
>> until fuel is burned off and the wiper moves to a new location, then the
>> gauge works normally again. Simple and relatively simple to fix.
>
> If what you say is true, why do quite a few relatively new planes exhibit
> the same symptoms?
>
>>
>> Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance
>> systems? Do you trust totalizers totally?
>
> I've flown lots of planes with totalizers and never seen a failure. I've
> also seen lots of failures and gross errors in float type systems (new and
> old), so in my experience, yes they are more reliable.
>
> As far as your last question it appears to be argumentative. I could just
> as easily ask you if you trust the standard Cessna fuel gauge totally, but
> neither really deserves an answer.
I doubt my experiences are typical. Most of the fuel quantity and totalizer
systems I saw over thirty years weren't operating correctly, and I was being
paid to repair them. Age makes most indicating systems untrustworthy.
Having multiple systems is good, if they aren't interdependent.

Even float rods on Piper Cubs and others hang occasional, or the floats
saturate and sink. Direct-reading sight tubes are probably the most
reliable indicators, but even those can become difficult to read with age.

I don't trust any fuel indication system.

[Mike]

"Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>>>>
>>>>> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in
>>>>> South
>>>>> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>>>>
>>>> This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge uses
>>>> the same technology as a toilet tank float.
>>>>
>>>> A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.
>>>
>>> Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank float
>>> valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades. However,
>>> many have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually the resistance
>>> winding will develop spots where the wiper doesn't make good contact,
>>> and the gauge (U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will fluctuate wildly for a few
>>> minutes, until fuel is burned off and the wiper moves to a new location,
>>> then the gauge works normally again. Simple and relatively simple to
>>> fix.
>>
>> If what you say is true, why do quite a few relatively new planes exhibit
>> the same symptoms?
>>
>>>
>>> Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance
>>> systems? Do you trust totalizers totally?
>>
>> I've flown lots of planes with totalizers and never seen a failure. I've
>> also seen lots of failures and gross errors in float type systems (new
>> and old), so in my experience, yes they are more reliable.
>>
>> As far as your last question it appears to be argumentative. I could
>> just as easily ask you if you trust the standard Cessna fuel gauge
>> totally, but neither really deserves an answer.
> I doubt my experiences are typical. Most of the fuel quantity and
> totalizer systems I saw over thirty years weren't operating correctly, and
> I was being paid to repair them. Age makes most indicating systems
> untrustworthy. Having multiple systems is good, if they aren't
> interdependent.

Agreed, and the best way to check them is simply to stick the tanks both
before and after a flight.

> Even float rods on Piper Cubs and others hang occasional, or the floats
> saturate and sink. Direct-reading sight tubes are probably the most
> reliable indicators, but even those can become difficult to read with age.
>
> I don't trust any fuel indication system.

There is one fuel indication system that's reasonably accurate, and that is
the prop which quits turning when you run out. Where many people get into
trouble is they DON'T trust their fuel indication system until the
aforementioned one indicates zero. I use mine to cross check my flight
planning, and if they don't agree it's time to do something different.

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:20 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>>>http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>
>>>This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
>>>Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>>
>>You might want to change that to "gauge."
>
>
> Or not. Gage is a perfectly fine variant.

Say what?


gage [gayj] noun (plural gag·es) (archaic)

1.pledge: something that is given or left as security until a debt is
paid or an obligation is fulfilled

2.token of challenge: a glove or other object that is thrown down or
offered as a challenge to fight

3.challenge: a challenge to fight

transitive verb (past gaged, past participle gaged, present participle
gag·ing, 3rd person present singular gag·es) (archaic)

1.offer something as pledge: to offer something as security against a
debt or other obligation

2.BETTING offer as stake in bet: to
offer something as a stake in a bet

[Ross]

Mike wrote:
> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in
>>>>>> South
>>>>>> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge
>>>>> uses the same technology as a toilet tank float.
>>>>>
>>>>> A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.
>>>>
>>>> Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank
>>>> float valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades.
>>>> However, many have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually
>>>> the resistance winding will develop spots where the wiper doesn't
>>>> make good contact, and the gauge (U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will
>>>> fluctuate wildly for a few minutes, until fuel is burned off and the
>>>> wiper moves to a new location, then the gauge works normally again.
>>>> Simple and relatively simple to fix.
>>>
>>> If what you say is true, why do quite a few relatively new planes
>>> exhibit the same symptoms?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance
>>>> systems? Do you trust totalizers totally?
>>>
>>> I've flown lots of planes with totalizers and never seen a failure.
>>> I've also seen lots of failures and gross errors in float type
>>> systems (new and old), so in my experience, yes they are more reliable.
>>>
>>> As far as your last question it appears to be argumentative. I could
>>> just as easily ask you if you trust the standard Cessna fuel gauge
>>> totally, but neither really deserves an answer.
>> I doubt my experiences are typical. Most of the fuel quantity and
>> totalizer systems I saw over thirty years weren't operating correctly,
>> and I was being paid to repair them. Age makes most indicating
>> systems untrustworthy. Having multiple systems is good, if they aren't
>> interdependent.
>
> Agreed, and the best way to check them is simply to stick the tanks both
> before and after a flight.
>
>> Even float rods on Piper Cubs and others hang occasional, or the
>> floats saturate and sink. Direct-reading sight tubes are probably
>> the most reliable indicators, but even those can become difficult to
>> read with age.
>>
>> I don't trust any fuel indication system.
>
> There is one fuel indication system that's reasonably accurate, and that
> is the prop which quits turning when you run out. Where many people get
> into trouble is they DON'T trust their fuel indication system until the
> aforementioned one indicates zero. I use mine to cross check my flight
> planning, and if they don't agree it's time to do something different.

I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Sam Spade]

Ross wrote:

>
>
> I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate.
>

That only works if you truly know how many gallons were in the tank at
takeoff.

[Ross]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Ross wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate.
>>
>
> That only works if you truly know how many gallons were in the tank at
> takeoff.

Correct. also it is my plane so I know how long each trip was and I also
have a conservative factor. I get a "reset" each time I fill up. On long
trips I always start out with a full tank.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Mike]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in
>>>>>>> South
>>>>>>> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge
>>>>>> uses the same technology as a toilet tank float.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank float
>>>>> valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades. However,
>>>>> many have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually the
>>>>> resistance winding will develop spots where the wiper doesn't make
>>>>> good contact, and the gauge (U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will fluctuate
>>>>> wildly for a few minutes, until fuel is burned off and the wiper moves
>>>>> to a new location, then the gauge works normally again. Simple and
>>>>> relatively simple to fix.
>>>>
>>>> If what you say is true, why do quite a few relatively new planes
>>>> exhibit the same symptoms?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance
>>>>> systems? Do you trust totalizers totally?
>>>>
>>>> I've flown lots of planes with totalizers and never seen a failure.
>>>> I've also seen lots of failures and gross errors in float type systems
>>>> (new and old), so in my experience, yes they are more reliable.
>>>>
>>>> As far as your last question it appears to be argumentative. I could
>>>> just as easily ask you if you trust the standard Cessna fuel gauge
>>>> totally, but neither really deserves an answer.
>>> I doubt my experiences are typical. Most of the fuel quantity and
>>> totalizer systems I saw over thirty years weren't operating correctly,
>>> and I was being paid to repair them. Age makes most indicating systems
>>> untrustworthy. Having multiple systems is good, if they aren't
>>> interdependent.
>>
>> Agreed, and the best way to check them is simply to stick the tanks both
>> before and after a flight.
>>
>>> Even float rods on Piper Cubs and others hang occasional, or the floats
>>> saturate and sink. Direct-reading sight tubes are probably the most
>>> reliable indicators, but even those can become difficult to read with
>>> age.
>>>
>>> I don't trust any fuel indication system.
>>
>> There is one fuel indication system that's reasonably accurate, and that
>> is the prop which quits turning when you run out. Where many people get
>> into trouble is they DON'T trust their fuel indication system until the
>> aforementioned one indicates zero. I use mine to cross check my flight
>> planning, and if they don't agree it's time to do something different.
>
> I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate.

And if you're flying a 172, there's no reason not to like using that method
as it's pretty simple and relatively foolproof.

However, when you're flying an aircraft that has a much wider variance in
fuel burn rates depending on how it's configured, those figures get a bit
more complicated and it's nice to have some cross checking abilities.

[Mike]

"Ross" > wrote in message
...
> Sam Spade wrote:
>> Ross wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate.
>>>
>>
>> That only works if you truly know how many gallons were in the tank at
>> takeoff.
>
> Correct. also it is my plane so I know how long each trip was and I also
> have a conservative factor. I get a "reset" each time I fill up. On long
> trips I always start out with a full tank.

Assuming you have long range tanks, using that method you could always just
use your bladder which is going to tell you to land long before your tanks
run dry.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 8, 8:35 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 10:20 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
> >>Ron Garret wrote:
>
> >>>http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>
> >>>This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in South
> >>>Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>
> >>You might want to change that to "gauge."
>
> > Or not. Gage is a perfectly fine variant.
>
> Say what?
>
> gage [gayj] noun (plural gag·es) (archaic)
>
> 1.pledge: something that is given or left as security until a debt is
> paid or an obligation is fulfilled
>
> 2.token of challenge: a glove or other object that is thrown down or
> offered as a challenge to fight
>
> 3.challenge: a challenge to fight
>
> transitive verb (past gaged, past participle gaged, present participle
> gag·ing, 3rd person present singular gag·es) (archaic)
>
> 1.offer something as pledge: to offer something as security against a
> debt or other obligation
>
> 2.BETTING offer as stake in bet: to
> offer something as a stake in a bet

A dictionary will help:

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
gauge
Variant(s):
also gage \ˈg�j\
Function:
noun

2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing:

Furthermore: Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling.
You can too.

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

>
> A dictionary will help:
>
> From Merriam-Webster:
>
> Main Entry:
> gauge
> Variant(s):
> also gage \ˈg�j\
> Function:
> noun
>
> 2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing:
>
> Furthermore: Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling.
> You can too.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage

[Ross]

Mike wrote:
> "Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>> Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like my engine performance tables and a stop watch, Pretty accurate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That only works if you truly know how many gallons were in the tank
>>> at takeoff.
>>
>> Correct. also it is my plane so I know how long each trip was and I
>> also have a conservative factor. I get a "reset" each time I fill up.
>> On long trips I always start out with a full tank.
>
> Assuming you have long range tanks, using that method you could always
> just use your bladder which is going to tell you to land long before
> your tanks run dry.

No I do not have long range tanks, but I know what you mean. I am ready
to set down after 2.5 hours anyway. I have a friend that tanks up and
can go 8 hours in his A36 with tip tanks.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[[email protected]]

On Dec 9, 1:07 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > A dictionary will help:
>
> > From Merriam-Webster:
>
> > Main Entry:
> > gauge
> > Variant(s):
> > also gage \ˈg�j\
> > Function:
> > noun
>
> > 2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing:
>
> > Furthermore: Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling.
> > You can too.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage

Dude! Give it up:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gauge%5B1%5D

Also, have you ever flown a Cessna? Open the POH for crying out loud.

[Mike]

> wrote in message
...
> On Dec 9, 1:07 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > A dictionary will help:
> >
> > > From Merriam-Webster:
> >
> > > Main Entry:
> > > gauge
> > > Variant(s):
> > > also gage \ˈg�j\
> > > Function:
> > > noun
> >
> > > 2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing:
> >
> > > Furthermore: Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling.
> > > You can too.
> >
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage
>
> Dude! Give it up:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gauge%5B1%5D
>
> Also, have you ever flown a Cessna? Open the POH for crying out loud.

I just checked a few of mine. Back in the 60's when they were known as
"Owner's Manual" the word "gage" is used. As late as the 80's, they were
still using "gage" in the POH. I have a very recent one, but it's for a
G1000, so no gauges (or gages), just "indicators".

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> On Dec 9, 1:07 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A dictionary will help:
>>
>>>From Merriam-Webster:
>>
>>>Main Entry:
>>>gauge
>>>Variant(s):
>>>also gage \ˈg�j\
>>>Function:
>>>noun
>>
>>>2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing:
>>
>>>Furthermore: Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling.
>>>You can too.
>>
>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage
>
>
> Dude! Give it up:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gauge%5B1%5D
>
> Also, have you ever flown a Cessna? Open the POH for crying out loud.

So what. All that proves is Cessna can't spell. Last time I checked
they weren't the Cessna Dictionary Company.

I've flown a lot of other aircraft than Cessnas and all the others have
gauges.

[Mike]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 1:07 am, Sam Spade > wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A dictionary will help:
>>>
>>>>From Merriam-Webster:
>>>
>>>>Main Entry:
>>>>gauge
>>>>Variant(s):
>>>>also gage \ˈg�j\
>>>>Function:
>>>>noun
>>>
>>>>2: an instrument for or a means of measuring or testing:
>>>
>>>>Furthermore: Many Cessna Information Manuals also use this spelling.
>>>>You can too.
>>>
>>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage
>>
>>
>> Dude! Give it up:
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gauge%5B1%5D
>>
>> Also, have you ever flown a Cessna? Open the POH for crying out loud.
>
> So what. All that proves is Cessna can't spell. Last time I checked they
> weren't the Cessna Dictionary Company.
>
> I've flown a lot of other aircraft than Cessnas and all the others have
> gauges.

"Gage" was used more predominately in the US in days past. It's probably
safe to assume a lot of older US manufactured aircraft prior to WWII used
the word "gage" in favor of "gauge".

At any rate both are correct so why you persist on saying otherwise is
anyone's guess. Grammar flames are pretty lame to begin with and harping on
a fallacious grammar flame has to be even more so.

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:36:47 GMT, Mike wrote:

> And if you're

STFU
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

[Mike]

"Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:36:47 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
> And if you're
>
> STFU

http://www.archive.org/details/Flyingwi1953

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:32:51 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:36:47 GMT, Mike wrote:
>>
>> And if you're
>>
>> STFU

> Call me.

> http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h146/auddette/you_re_a_homo.jpg

You wish.
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:13:28 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in
>>>>>> South
>>>>>> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge uses
>>>>> the same technology as a toilet tank float.
>>>>>
>>>>> A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.
>>>>
>>>> Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank float
>>>> valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades. However,
>>>> many have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually the resistance
>>>> winding will develop spots where the wiper doesn't make good contact,
>>>> and the gauge (U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will fluctuate wildly for a few
>>>> minutes, until fuel is burned off and the wiper moves to a new location,
>>>> then the gauge works normally again. Simple and relatively simple to
>>>> fix.
>>>
>>> If what you say is true, why do quite a few relatively new planes exhibit
>>> the same symptoms?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance
>>>> systems? Do you trust totalizers totally?
>>>
>>> I've flown lots of planes with totalizers and never seen a failure. I've
>>> also seen lots of failures and gross errors in float type systems (new
>>> and old), so in my experience, yes they are more reliable.
>>>
>>> As far as your last question it appears to be argumentative. I could
>>> just as easily ask you if you trust the standard Cessna fuel gauge
>>> totally, but neither really deserves an answer.
>> I doubt my experiences are typical. Most of the fuel quantity and
>> totalizer systems I saw over thirty years weren't operating correctly, and
>> I was being paid to repair them. Age makes most indicating systems
>> untrustworthy. Having multiple systems is good, if they aren't
>> interdependent.
>
> Agreed, and the best way to check them is simply to stick the tanks both
> before and after a flight.
>
>> Even float rods on Piper Cubs and others hang occasional, or the floats
>> saturate and sink. Direct-reading sight tubes are probably the most
>> reliable indicators, but even those can become difficult to read with age.
>>
>> I don't trust any fuel indication system.
>
> There is one fuel indication system that's reasonably accurate, and that is
> the prop which quits turning when you run out. Where many people get into
> trouble is they DON'T trust their fuel indication system until the
> aforementioned one indicates zero. I use mine to cross check my flight
> planning, and if they don't agree it's time to do something different.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h146/auddette/you_re_a_homo.jpg
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

[Mike]

"Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:13:28 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Dale Scroggins" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mike" <nospam @ aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> http://ronsvideos.fliggo.com/video/uIgc0dP9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This video was shot in a Cessna 206 taking us to a game reserve in
>>>>>>> South
>>>>>>> Africa. Watch the fuel gage in the upper right corner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is typical for a Cessna and a few others where the fuel gauge
>>>>>> uses
>>>>>> the same technology as a toilet tank float.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A fuel totalizer is a very nice thing to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Float-type sending units are, in fact, simpler than toilet tank float
>>>>> valves, and more reliable. They work reliably for decades. However,
>>>>> many have been in service nearly forty years. Eventually the
>>>>> resistance
>>>>> winding will develop spots where the wiper doesn't make good contact,
>>>>> and the gauge (U.S.) or gage (Brit.) will fluctuate wildly for a few
>>>>> minutes, until fuel is burned off and the wiper moves to a new
>>>>> location,
>>>>> then the gauge works normally again. Simple and relatively simple to
>>>>> fix.
>>>>
>>>> If what you say is true, why do quite a few relatively new planes
>>>> exhibit
>>>> the same symptoms?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you believe fuel totalizers are more reliable? Or capacitance
>>>>> systems? Do you trust totalizers totally?
>>>>
>>>> I've flown lots of planes with totalizers and never seen a failure.
>>>> I've
>>>> also seen lots of failures and gross errors in float type systems (new
>>>> and old), so in my experience, yes they are more reliable.
>>>>
>>>> As far as your last question it appears to be argumentative. I could
>>>> just as easily ask you if you trust the standard Cessna fuel gauge
>>>> totally, but neither really deserves an answer.
>>> I doubt my experiences are typical. Most of the fuel quantity and
>>> totalizer systems I saw over thirty years weren't operating correctly,
>>> and
>>> I was being paid to repair them. Age makes most indicating systems
>>> untrustworthy. Having multiple systems is good, if they aren't
>>> interdependent.
>>
>> Agreed, and the best way to check them is simply to stick the tanks both
>> before and after a flight.
>>
>>> Even float rods on Piper Cubs and others hang occasional, or the floats
>>> saturate and sink. Direct-reading sight tubes are probably the most
>>> reliable indicators, but even those can become difficult to read with
>>> age.
>>>
>>> I don't trust any fuel indication system.
>>
>> There is one fuel indication system that's reasonably accurate, and that
>> is
>> the prop which quits turning when you run out. Where many people get
>> into
>> trouble is they DON'T trust their fuel indication system until the
>> aforementioned one indicates zero. I use mine to cross check my flight
>> planning, and if they don't agree it's time to do something different.
>
> http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h146/auddette/you_re_a_homo.jpg
> Bear Bottoms
> Private Attorney General

Your puberty hasn't even hit its stride yet and you're already so sure,
Kookie?

I'm sure your mommie has known for some time.

[Bear Bottoms[_4_]]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:41:30 GMT, Mike wrote:

> "Gag" was used when I swallow spermies.

Excellent to know
--
Bear Bottoms
Private Attorney General

[Mike]

"Bear Bottoms" > wrote in message
...
> "Gag" was used when I swallow spermies.
>
> Excellent to know

Not really, but I suspected as much anyway.